As for whether we’re doing what needs to be done to accomplish that goal in Iraq, throughout the ME, and elsewhere (Indonesia, Africa, etc.), I think the jury’s still out on that one. I prefer a “carrot AND stick” approach to the problem, and any appropriate application of either will take years or decades, not weeks or months, to bear fruit. In a culture (yes, I know I’m generalizing) where concession and compromise are often viewed as weakness, it will take a long time for the beneficiaries of largesse to “get it.” That time horizon is stretched even farther when you introduce local politics into the mix.

Similarly, a “stick” approach — hunting down terrorists and killing them — can only bear fruit over time. Immediate anger, frustration, and feelings of impotence may increase the rolls in Terrorist’s Local 151 for a time, and it’s only when (1) it becomes apparent that this particular union membership does not have much to offer in the “life expectancy” portion of the benefits package; and (2) there begins to exist some kernel of hope for a better life outside the union, that folks begin to turn in their union cards. You have to be extremely careful any time you use the “stick,” because the whole equation changes when reprisals induce growing sympathy among the general population, but there is little evidence this has happened yet in Iraq, or is likely to happen in the immediate future, opinion polls notwithstanding.

But folks who spend all their time focusing on the “numbers” of terrorists as evidence of the success or failure of the “War on Terror” miss the boat in a pretty big way. While I agree that our long-term goals must include some focus on decreasing the terrorist talent pool, our short- and medium-term emphasis must be upon limiting their ability to hurt us. By this, I mean denying terrorists’ access to the time, money, space, leisure, and Really Bad Things necessary to “kick it up a notch,” to execute the spectacular operation. In my opinion, we are doing a fairly good job on that front, and President Bush’s approach is far superior to Kerry’s likely tack.

Without time/money/space/leisure/Really Bad Things, even a temporary increase in the absolute number of terrorists/terrorist sympathizers is okay as a short-term outcome. If terrorists’ organizations are pursued and harried relentlessly, and kept away from the cabinet under the sink where folks keep the really dangerous stuff, we will suffer far less than if we pursue policies designed to make more friends by easing the pressure. If I were convinced that Kerry’s “negotiate first, ask questions later” approach stood any chance of making more friends without substantially reducing the pressure on existing terrorist organizations, I’d give him a look on Election Day. Alas.

It comes down to this: As callous as it may sound, I’m willing to accept the odd additional suicide bomber, shooting rampage, etc. over the next several years because we’ve made more enemies than we otherwise might have, as long as we are doing our best to prevent the “big score.” Bush seems to get this. Kerry doesn’t.

I trace so much of our present difficulties in Iraq back to Fallujah. If we had delivered a brutal lesson in what consequences follow the murder of Americans there — much that has happened since wouldn’t have happened.

In a war, present brutality prevents future brutalitIES.

I understand realpolitik but I hate it. Because of it people in Eastern Europe were condemned to serfdom, so that West can selfishly grow in opulence and arrogance. Because of realpolitik generation of my parents ended up with destroyed lives and the only reason I did not end up like them is because I took the first chance to hotfoot it from there, regardless of consequences. All I possessed while I arrived in the US was a backpack and parcel of books, and smattering of English.

Do you know how much better the world in general would have been if all these people were not abandoned? How much human potential would not get wasted? How much richer and more free we would be now?

As regarding security of this country, how exactly withdrawal from Iraq or summon help of the imaginary forces of Germany and France is going to improve matters? You want to fight back only after we get attacked again? And what guarantee do you have that you are not going to end up in the place that is going to be hit? Where is it better to have frontlines ñ in the ME where the terrorist are, or in every city, every school of America? Who is better prepared to fight deprived members of the Islamic Death Cult: trained and armed Marines or stockbrokers, janitors, or schoolchildren?

Oh yes, letís yak about multilateralism, appease dictatorial regimes sheltering terrorists, provide nuclear material to Iran and NK, so we can feel better for an election cycle or so Ö.before commencement of a real Apocalypse. I thought that folly of Neville Chamberlain thought people something. Apparently ìPeace in Our Timeî is a winning slogan after all.

Bush did not create the problem, he inherited it and I have no desire to hand power back to the people who sat there for eight long years doing nothing. They wrote papers and articles and gave speaches about the glories of multilateralism while people died. So yes, the terrorists want a return to the good old days when the Democrats were running things and the president was more interested in getting laid than in chasing down AlQaida in caves.

We have killed AlQaida leaders and sent the survivors into hiding. We have let them know they can not kill with impunity. The idea that if we fight back that will enrage them so it would be much better if we just died in silence is absurd. The idea that doing nothing while Saddam Hussein a man who killed more Muslims than the Crusaders was allowed to flaunt the law is wrong.

You know the left has come to the defence of history’s greatest murderers. They defend Saddam and his regime just like they defended the Khmer Rouge and the VC and Stalin and the Shining Path and Farc and with all the self righteous bs they come to one conclusion:

there is not problem that can’t be solved by blaming the US and removing it from the situation. US bad.

No thanks for the reading list. I gave up reading that rag years ago.

It’s patently absurd that “terrorists” all think alike and are hoping Kerry wins the election. I see your underlying point: Bush has strongly prosecuted the war on terror, and so “terrorists”, fearing for their collective survival, are hoping he’s safely out of office come Jan. 2005.

There’s little evidence that the global jihadist movement has significantly weakened since the launch of our war on terror. If anything, it has strengthened. New recruits, infuriated at our war in Iraq that they view as unjust, have joined the insurgency- a movement that has at least partially conflated with al Qaeda.

I would encourage everyone here to read James Fallows’ piece in the current Atlantic that discusses how we’ve lost ground in our war against terror due to Bush’s focus on Iraq. Until I see a well-researched, thoughtful retort to Fallows’ piece (Gregg Easterbrook’s doesn’t count) I stand by my feeling that our adventures in Iraq have made our larger struggle against terror more difficult, rather than easier.

It isn’t easy to write or say such pessimistic things….I want us to succeed just as much as you do. I’m not confident that Kerry will make things better. But I’m sure that Bush isn’t the man to get us out of problems he’s created. For me, both candidates are equally bad on the war. I’m hoping Kerry wins only because I’ll take an unknown over a known failure.

I hope the lead holds.

Yes the common assumption now is that we should have put twice as many troops in, shot the looters, put curfews in place, kicked in more doors, locked up more people and made deals with Saddam’s army. In fact there was a report done calling for some of those measures. Of course there were reports saying Saddam would use wmd and so we should limit men in the field,and there were reports saying we had to first secure the oil fields because Saddam would burn them. There were reports that said if we kept the Baathist army intact there would be a shia uprising and civil war. The reports said people would be so glad to see Saddam gone that they would help with their own security. There were reports enough enough to cover everything. But decisions had to be made and the president’s critics can say what they want now but very few of them were prepared to give him more resources to work with. Not when it counted.

Of course that would have lead to billions more in expenditures, tens of thousands of more US targets, widespread civilian casualties and charges of abuse for killing people trying to steal air conditioners and there is no way of knowing that it would have stopped the insurgency.

I do think the Bush administration needs to learn from past mistakes, but I think it is unfair and naive to think there would not be any.

Another reason they’re the enemy.

We do what our “allies” want us to do, multi-lateral, sensitive to culture, yada yada yada.

Vodkapundit has a recent posting about a Rasmussen(?) poll which showed 77% DISAPPROVAL for W’s performance. I and another wrote that we would be included because we don’t think he’s been hard enough.

I still say at 8:01 PM PST on 11/2, right after the polls close, I don’t think HI matters, he gives the order to slap down Fallujah. And fire a warning shot or 100 over Iran’s bow. Wouldn’t mind Syria getting a little tune-up either.

48 days to go while we sit on our hands and twirl. In a feather boa and stilettos, of course. Those Lambchop slippers just don’t cut it.

If we fail, if we succumb to fear, we would no longer deserve to be called the land of the free and the home of the brave. The words would have no truth.

I for one will have none of it.

Right now the drudge headline says ìIraq prospects bleakî. Courage is going forward when things look bleak. No matter what the reasons for going in, giving Iraq and the ME a future other than tyranny is a noble cause and I will be happy to be let history be the judge.

I looked back at Drudge. The headline just changed. ìGALLUP SHOWS BUSH BLOWOUT: 14 POINT LEAD OVER KERRY.

The land of the free, and the home of the brave.

But I married a young man who wanted to be a farmer and I left school to help work that farm.

Now I could say I screwed up and that I planned my life poorly. I did not read enough self help books.I used resources, namely my youth, badly. True, but if I had done all those things I might have been hit by a drunk driver on the way home from a party at the mayor’s house and died young.

You just never know. All we can do is learn from our mistakes and change what we do and the way we do it to adjust to changes around us. I imagine that is why the Bush administration is using resources allocated for reconstruction to increase security.

Iraq is like the wild west in the 21st century.

I think the Bush administration has a great deal invested in Iraq in every sense of the word. Success means a lot more to Bush than it ever could to Kerry, who will just blame any problems on Bush and move on.

But I think one thing is for sure, the terrorists want Bush to lose this election. They are not doing him any favors. Short of putting up terrorists for Kerry signs they can not make their desire any plainer. I don’t know that they would be dancing in the streets if Kerry wins, but I have the creepy feeling they might. And for that reason if none other I will not vote for the man. I am not in the least Spanish. I leave that to my Bush hating friends.

Nut ef i gut tow hum frist?!

We were promised a long hard war. To me, long means more than six years. I fully expect the situation in Iraq to deteriorate substantially until the Shia decide that they have had enough. The Sunni’s have known since Saddam’s fall that old scores were going to be settled. They may as well die fighting and they are. The factor that is not being effectively reported is the number of non-Sunni casualties that the Iraqi’s are now taking. There have been numerous bombings of police stations and practically all of them have occured while lines of Iraqi’s waited outside to sign up to become policemen. The bombings haven’t stopped the signups at all and I believe that beyond a steady job quite a number of the recruits are signing up for an opportunity to take a bit of revenge without legal risk.

Iraq is going to get a lot bloodier and there is nothing to be done about it. There was and is no plan that reflect the pent up desire for revenge that comes from having a heel on your neck for thirty-five years. Putting more troops in just means that more Americans would be targets. The Iraqis are going to have to finish this – not us.